JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha & G. C. Bharuka, JJ. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant recognition to Veer Kunwar Singh Girl's High School. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The School in question was established in January, 1987. In July, 1987 an application for establishment of the said school was filed. The said school was inspected by the District Education Officer and he by his letter dated 16th October, 1987 addressed to the Director Secondary Education recommended for grant of recognition. 4. Similarly the District Inspectors of School Purnia by her letter dated 2.11.1987 also recommended that permission to establish the said school be granted. 5. It appears that by reason of the impugned order dated 30.12.1991 the permission sought for by the petitioner was rejected. The said order is contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application. 6. The petitioner bag filed a writ application before this court earlier being CWJC No. 5957 of 1991. By an order dated 27.11.1991 a division Bench of this court held as follows :- “The grievance of the petitioner is that in annexure-2 it has not been stated which were the conditions which the petitioner has not fulfilled. Heard the petitioner who is appearing in persons and the learned Government Advocate. We are of the opinion that respondent No. 4 ought to have informed the petitioner the conditions which it had not fulfilled, so that it could take a step for fulfilling the same to enable the State Government to pass an appropriate order on its prayer for permission to establish the school. We, therefore, direct respondent No. 24 to inform the petitioner the conditions which it had not said to have fulfilled by 31st December, 1991." 7. In terms of the said decision of this court the impugned order has been passed. 8. From a perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application it appears that one of the ground mentioned therein is that the population of the block where the school in question is situated is 1, 61, 579 and on that basis, permission to establish only 10 schools could be granted which having already been done, no permission to establish another school can be accorded. 9. 9. It has further been stated that there are three High schools within the triangular distance of 5 kilometers and thus the request of the petitioner to establish the school on the basis of distance also cannot be accepted to. It has further been held that the map of the block submitted by the petitioner is also not complete and clear. 10. The legislature of the state enacted the Bihar Non Government Secondary school (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 (herein after referred to as ‘the said Act) which came into force with effect from 2.10.1980. 11. Section 2 (gha) of the said Act defines proprietary school, which reads thus :- "(gha) Swatadharak Madhymik Vidyalyay giska sampurna bitiya bhar kisi nayas sangat (association) athawa nikiya dawara wahan kya jata hao. Aur rajya sarkar dwara un sartho aur nivadhano ke satya, jo rajya sarkar samay samay par nirdharit kere, Swathadharak madhymik vidyalyay ke rup me ghoshit awam manyata pratap ho.” 12. It appears that the state of Bihar in purported exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 3(3) of the said Act had issued a notification framing rules, laying down the procedures for grant of recognition of proprietary schools. 13. The said notification No. 129 dated 2.10.1980 was the subject matter of consideration of this court in Ram Ballabh pd. Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1986 PLJR 373 . In that decision it has been held that the said notification has the force of law, 14. However, we fail to understand as to how the State could frame any rule in purported exercise of its jurisdiction under sub-section 3 of section 3 of the said Act, inasmuch as the said provision relates to taking over of management of school and has got nothing to do with the grant of permission for establishment of a school and/or grant of recognition thereof. 15. However, in our opinion, the wrong leveling of the provisions of law for tracing out the source of power is not very material inasmuch as the State in exercise of its power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India is entitled to lay down the guidelines. 16. Reference in this connection may be made to Union of India vs. Khazan Singh reported in 1992 S.C. 1535 and Smt. Prabtiha Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in 1988 PLJR 646. 17. 16. Reference in this connection may be made to Union of India vs. Khazan Singh reported in 1992 S.C. 1535 and Smt. Prabtiha Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in 1988 PLJR 646. 17. However the question which arises for consideration in this application is as to whether the directions issued which are allegedly necessary to be complied with be fore permission for establishment of the recognition thereof can be granted are commensurate with the provisions of the said Act or not. 18. The said Act provides for grant of permission to establish Secondary school and/or recognition thereof by the state of Bihar in exercise of its power conferred upon it under section 19 of the said Act which reads as follows :- HINDI 19. From a bare perusal of the said provision, it would appear that the said provisions lay down the conditions for grant of permission to establish the school and/or grant of recognition thereof. The grounds stated in the impugned order as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application do not come within the purview of the any of the grounds mentioned in section 19 of the said Act. 20. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submitted that in terms of section 19 of the said Act, the state is entitled to issue directions from time to time and thus the conditions for establishment of the school which are contained in the aforementioned notification No. 129 must be held to be valid. 21. In our opinion, the submission of the learned Advocate General cannot be accepted for more than one reasons. The aforementioned clause empowers the state to lay down the conditions only in relation to the policy decision relating to imparting of secondary education appointment of teachers and headmasters end eligibilities of the candidates therefore, sanction of posts and other matters which are necessary for maintenance of the standard of the institution for imparting secondary education in the State. Such directions therefore evidently can be issued for the purpose of maintenance of standard of education imparted in the institution in question which has got nothing to do with the establishment of or grant of recognition of the institution itself. 22. Such directions therefore evidently can be issued for the purpose of maintenance of standard of education imparted in the institution in question which has got nothing to do with the establishment of or grant of recognition of the institution itself. 22. Such directions are, as a plain reading of the provisions of section 19 of the said Act, shows are required to be followed upon grant of recognition of the school and not prior thereto. 23. The submission of the learned Advocate General must also be judged on the touch. stone of Article 19 of the Constitution of India Any person is entitled to carryon an if business or profession subject to any imposition or reasonable restriction that may be imposed by law to he enacted by the State in terms of clause 6 there of. There is no law which prohibits a Citizen of India to establish and manage an institution. Such restrictions are required to be imposed only by a legislative Act. Such restrictions must also pass the test of reasonableness. 24. No condition, thus, can be imposed which would be violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India as also section 19 of the said Act. 25. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the state has no right to lay down any supplemental conditions for the purpose of establishment and for recognition of the secondary school which are not envisaged under section 19 of the said Act, nor such restriction can be imposed by reason of executive directions which are contrary to the provisions there of. 26. So far as the conditions for grant of permission to a limited number of school is concerned, the same also in our opinion is not covered by Section 19 of the said Act not appears to be reasonable. The permission to establish a school and/or grant of recognition would depend upon the facilities provided by the institution for imparting education and not the number thereof. If the Institution of the petitioner does not get sufficient number of students, it establishes the school at its own risk. 27. In this case, the petitioner has also not prayed for any financial assistance from the State. 28. If the Institution of the petitioner does not get sufficient number of students, it establishes the school at its own risk. 27. In this case, the petitioner has also not prayed for any financial assistance from the State. 28. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the view that the impugned order as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application must be held to have been passed on irrelevant considerations. 29. In the result, this application is allowed the impugned order as contained in Annexure-2 is set aside and the Director Secondary Education is hereby directed to apply his mind afresh and pass a fresh order on the basis of the materials which are available on records keeping in view the factors enumerated in different clauses of section 19 of the said Act only. As the matter has been pending for a long time, we hope and trust that the respondent No. 2 shall dispose of the matter with utmost expedition and preferably within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. 30. This application is thus allowed to the aforementioned extent, but without any order as to casts. Application allowed.